Mundt James C, Katzelnick David J, Kennedy Sidney H, Eisfeld Beata S, Bouffard Beverley B, Greist John H
Healthcare Technology Systems, Inc., 7617 Mineral Point Road, Madison, WI 53717, USA.
J Psychiatr Res. 2006 Apr;40(3):243-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2005.05.002. Epub 2005 Jun 24.
Interest in self-reported measures of depression in clinical trials has grown in recent years. This study compared the reliability and validity of the clinician-administered Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) to a computer-administered version administered over the telephone using Interactive Voice Response (IVR) technology. Sixty subjects were administered both the clinician- and computer-administered versions of the MADRS in a counter-balanced order. A subsample of 20 patients was reassessed 24h later by both methods. Mean score differences between IVR and clinician were not statistically significant (<1 point) and a high correlation was found between forms (r=.815, p<.001). Reliability measures (Cronbach's Alpha and 24-h test-retest) were comparable. Clinicians rated the severity of subjects' sadness and pessimistic thoughts lower than subjects self-report. The data obtained in this pilot study provide support for the equivalence between the clinician and IVR versions of the MADRS.
近年来，临床试验中对自我报告的抑郁测量方法的关注度有所增加。本研究比较了临床医生实施的蒙哥马利-阿斯伯格抑郁评定量表（MADRS）与使用交互式语音应答（IVR）技术通过电话实施的计算机版MADRS的信度和效度。60名受试者以平衡顺序接受了临床医生版和计算机版的MADRS。20名患者的子样本在24小时后通过两种方法重新进行评估。IVR与临床医生评定的平均得分差异无统计学意义（<1分），且两种形式之间存在高度相关性（r = 0.815，p < 0.001）。信度测量（克朗巴哈系数和24小时重测）具有可比性。临床医生对受试者悲伤和悲观想法严重程度的评定低于受试者的自我报告。这项初步研究获得的数据支持了临床医生版和IVR版MADRS之间的等效性。
